Re: dh_movefiles, tar vs. mv
Eric Dorland <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Frank Küster (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> Well, fine. But the question remains: dh_install uses cp, not mv. What
>> is the problem with using mv? And would it be safe to use mv if I only
>> move complete directories?
> Well one reason is sometimes (in multipackage builds) you want to have
> the same file in 2 different packages.
Well, then I don't use mv. Note that I didn't request that dh_install
use mv from now on (although an option to do this might be a nice
idea). What I asked is whether there are any real reasons why I
shouldn't do it. If dh_install doesn't do it this way, I can still do it
> Also, the less side-effects
> during build time the better for debugging. Eg since dh_install is
> idempotent I can run my install target multiple times it will
> work. That won't work with dh_movefiles.
Well, that's of course a nice thing to have. However, I think in my case
its value is limited, since there is lot of other code during install
time, like moving things in the installed trees, moving and symlinking,
and especially removing some files completely. I tried to make it
idempotent, but that seemed to be a very hard task, and I gave up.
> OTOH if you have a massively big package, dh_install would be painful,
> especially on some of the buildds.
Yes, that's why I'm asking. Well, it's mainly about an architecture: all
package, but its painful for *my* machine...
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich